Who's Your choice for Sox Top of the Rotation Ace?

[FanSinceBoggs]

Cueto is my top choice due to the fact that he is a little younger than some of the other alternatives.  If they can get a negotiation window with Cueto, and if Cueto accepts the Lester offer (6 years 135 milliion) then I would trade for Cueto.  Cueto is two years younger than Lester, and so the back end of the contract is less problematic.
 
If these conditions are met, I would be willing to trade the following for Cueto:
 
(1) one of Swilhart or Margot (I would prefer trading Swilhart).
 
(2) Owens.
 
(3) a lesser quality hitting prospect, e.g., Brentz.
 
(4) a lesser quality pitching prospect, e.g., Escobar.
 
We keep hearing how great Swilhart is, but he is already 22 years old and hasn't had an elite offensive season in the minor leagues.  He could be on the verge of bigger things, like many are predicting, but who knows. . . .  This might be the best time to trade him--the Red Sox need a top of the rotation starter and Swilhart's value is a little hyped.

 

[soxhop411]

“@TimBritton: Cherington: ”Once Opening Day is gone, the whole No. 1 starter thing kind of is overrated.“”

 

[benhogan]

“@TimBritton: Cherington: ”Once Opening Day is gone, the whole No. 1 starter thing kind of is overrated.“”

Mad Baum might have a minor quibble with that...its matters a bunch when the playoffs begin.
 
but its smart, at this stage, for Ben to be saying things like this.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

“@TimBritton: Cherington: ”Once Opening Day is gone, the whole No. 1 starter thing kind of is overrated.“”

 
I hope this is posturing on Ben's part as part of a forthcoming trade, because of precisely what benhogan just mentioned.
 
I couldn't care less who the #1 starter is in the regular season. But when you need to name a guy to take the mound twice in a five game series, and two or three times in a seven game series, who you have to choose from will most assuredly make or break your season.

 

[DavidTai]

Was Baumgarner the ace when the season began? I don't think it matters too much till the playoffs anyway... and by then we'll have found one, traded for one, or be out of it.

 

[soxhop411]

I hope this is posturing on Ben's part as part of a forthcoming trade, because of precisely what benhogan just mentioned.
 
I couldn't care less who the #1 starter is in the regular season. But when you need to name a guy to take the mound twice in a five game series, and two or three times in a seven game series, who you have to choose from will most assuredly make or break your season.

its the same GM who told the press that the sox would most likely not make any moves at the winter meetings then an hour later made 3 trades. its 1000% posturing

 

[Fireball Fred]

The Sox should be talking with the Phils, as I'm sure they are. Philly is now clearly rebuilding, and they have two veteran lefties in the elusive "ace" range, who might be available on quite different terms. (Obviously Lee's physical status is a factor; we don't know it, but that doesn't mean nobody knows anything.) Hamels certainly, and Lee if he's half as good as he was before last year, would be much better than anyone in the current rotation. That said, the Sox shouldn't be dealing out of desperation, because the current rotation is at least plausible for an AL East contender.

 

[Doctor G]

“@TimBritton: Cherington: ”Once Opening Day is gone, the whole No. 1 starter thing kind of is overrated.“”

Once you lose more than 3 in a row it is not overrated. Extended losing streaks kill baseball teams.
That's why aces used to be called stoppers.

 

[nvalvo]

Was Baumgarner the ace when the season began? I don't think it matters too much till the playoffs anyway... and by then we'll have found one, traded for one, or be out of it.

Yes. He's been been a 200 IP, 190 K horse for three years.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Yes. He's been been a 200 IP, 190 K horse for three years.

 
Yeah, he was the ace this year and last. I'd say Matt Cain was the ace of the team in 2012, however. Cain's fallen off a cliff though, in large part due to injuries. 

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Once you lose more than 3 in a row it is not overrated. Extended losing streaks kill baseball teams.
That's why aces used to be called stoppers.

The 2013 Sox didn't lose more than three games in a row. It was nice to have Lester on the staff, but they managed to do that even while he was giving up two hits and walks per inning in June. They prevented a long losing streak because they were capable of winning every game every day. Lester was even better last year. When it got to a four game losing streak, if he managed to lose or the bullpen gave it up, they had to wait another four games for a chance to win again.

 

[nvalvo]

I think my choice might be the best pitcher available by trade if the team is contention midseason. 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Mad Baum might have a minor quibble with that...its matters a bunch when the playoffs begin.
 
but its smart, at this stage, for Ben to be saying things like this.

It may matter, but figuring out which "ace" to have makes even more difference. As Gammo points out, "In this year’s post-season, aces Clayton Kershaw, Lester, Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and James Shields pitched 57 1/3 innings, allowing 69 hits and 42 earned runs for a 6.59 ERA."

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-red-sox-bolster-starting-rotation-in-lesters-absence/

 

[snowmanny]

No, there is no guarantee that any particular pitcher X is going to provide you with an all-star regular season and a dominant post-season and help win you the World Series. It's been done many times, from Mathewson to Gibson to Bumgarner. But yes, it's all a crapshoot and yes, it's not the only way to win.

But I'd take my chances on Kershaw, Lester, Scherzer, etc. giving that sort of performance over Wiley, Porcello and Kelly and so would you and so would Gammons so I think his point is sort of silly.

 

[irinmike]

The point is, at the price it takes for the pie in the sky over paid "ace starters" you have the flexibility to sign TWO rotation type pitchers.  I will take that every time.  The  Red Sox front office if right on target with these acquisitions.  

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

I read this piece by fangraphs on the Reds:
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/how-the-reds-quietly-won-at-the-winter-meetings-121214
 
I could be wrong, but the piece gives me the impression that the Reds are not going to trade Cueto at this time -- instead, the Reds are trying to win this year.  The Reds are also interested in resigning Cueto.
 
Take Cueto off the table, and let's say the Phillies don't lower their asking price for Hamels (and they really don't need to lower their asking price; they can just hold on to Hamels to see if they can get the motherload for him at the trade deadline), that would eliminate two trade targets for the Red Sox.  Signing Scherzer would be out-of-character for the Red Sox and so that leaves Shields.  I would like to sign Shields for 3 years with a higher average annual salary, but there is no chance for that?  I would never go five years for Shields; I really don't want to go four, but it'll probably be necessary. . . .
 
Another option: trade a package consisting of Swilhart, Owens, and maybe something else for a younger SP who is ready to break in this year and might have a modicum of major league experience.  No one comes to mind right now -- those deals are hard to make anyway, since we are talking about a significant talent.  Actually, one name comes to mind, T.Walker, but I doubt the Mariners would want a young catcher and so that isn't the best fit.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Taijuan Walker is a bit better than Owens right now but the difference between the two isn't as big as you think it is and definitely isn't worth Swihart.

I'm not someone who thinks the Red Sox necessarily have to make a move for an ace SP but I think the only pitchers on the market right now who interest me are Zimmerman and Ross. Hamels is overrated at this point imo he's really more of a #2 who will require #1 talent and Cueto isn't available at all.

 

[lxt]

Taijuan Walker is a bit better than Owens right now but the difference between the two isn't as big as you think it is and definitely isn't worth Swihart.

I'm not someone who thinks the Red Sox necessarily have to make a move for an ace SP but I think the only pitchers on the market right now who interest me are Zimmerman and Ross. Hamels is overrated at this point imo he's really more of a #2 who will require #1 talent and Cueto isn't available at all.

I agree that Walker would be interesting but not for Swihart. It all depends on what Mariners are looking for - bats or arms - ML ready, or prospects. It would be worthwhile for BC to call and see. Having Owens, Johnson, Rodriguez and Walker ready to come up would be a nice position to be in.
 
I've jumped off the Hamels "bandwagon" once Lester wasn't signed. It's not anything logical just a gut thing. Ross is really interesting. SD seems to be looking for bats but with Cespedes gone I'm not sure we have what they need.
 
I'm not sure Cueto is off the market completely. If the Reds fail to extend him I think they'd be open to a trade. I imagine he'd not come cheap but BC needs to find what it is the Reds want to do. Without Cueto the Reds should consider themselves in rebuild mode which means young players & prospects. However, if they still think they have a shot then again I'm not sure if the Sox are a fit.

 

[MakMan44]

I don't see the point in talking about Walker. You'd have to overpay to acquire him, and it's basically no different than discussing acquiring any other pitching prospect in the game. 
 
The Red Sox need innings and a track record, not another talented pitching prospect. 

 

[The Boomer]

I'm leaning toward them going for a future ace.  The Mets badly need a shortstop of the now and future.  Marrerro and Owens for Noah Syndergaard would work for me.  Another not quite proven ace who won't cost a lot more than Owens (dealing from a deep LHP inventory) might be the best aproach.

 

[Doctor G]

I don't see the point in talking about Walker. You'd have to overpay to acquire him, and it's basically no different than discussing acquiring any other pitching prospect in the game. 
 
The Red Sox need innings and a track record, not another talented pitching prospect.

Tanaka was a talented pitching prospect, albeit an expensive one.

 

[grimshaw]

I don't see any reason at all to trade Owens for another pitching prospect.  Owens stock has trended upwards, and Syndergaard really struggled in AAA last year.  If anything Owens will be rated higher going into next season.
It only makes sense to me if it's one of those "challenge trades" if both guys have struggled for two straight years and a change of scenery can help them.

 

[donchoi]

Out of the names I've heard, I like Jordan Zimmerman the best. But will the Nats really deal him, given they just traded Detwiler to the Rangers and they've got a lot of pitchers leaving after this season?
 
Anyone heard about whether Yovani Gallardo might be available? He's got only one year left on his deal.

 

[TOleary25]

Out of the names I've heard, I like Jordan Zimmerman the best. But will the Nats really deal him, given they just traded Detwiler to the Rangers and they've got a lot of pitchers leaving after this season?
 

 
Based on Rosenthal's article this morning they are still dangling Zimmermann in trade talks:
 
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/don-t-nationals-want-to-pay-to-play-121414
 
Some interesting info from Rosenthal is that the Nats proposed a Zimmermann and Desmond trade to Seattle for Walker and Miller but the Mariners declined because they didn't want to absorb both contracts. He also mentioned the Nats and Red Sox have had conversations about Zimmermann. Seems like there could be a framework for a three way trade there somewhere.

 

[grimshaw]

Substitute Owens for Walker and that may be close.
The Nats could use that 27 mill to re-up Fister or save some for Strasburg.
Tough to believe the Nats would really want Brad Miller that badly.  He hasn't played very well in his first two seasons;

 

[TomRicardo]

Once you lose more than 3 in a row it is not overrated. Extended losing streaks kill baseball teams.
That's why aces used to be called stoppers.

 
To be fair the one he had before August last year didn't bail him out.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I'm guessing that the Nationals would want some controllable, relatively inexpensive combination of a rotation replacement and middle infielder if they're going to trade Zimmermann.  They've explored an extension with Zimmermann, to no avail.  They have key guys who are going to get expensive very soon, as well as other FAs to deal with. These cost concerns are why I think they are looking at possible trades instead of just signing Lowrie (now signed)/Cabrera, etc.  And they want to remain a contender (which is why they haven't jumped at the chance to sign Drew!). Tough balancing act.
 
I don't think we match up well on the MI side of the problem.  We could include a SP (any of our 5 projected starters), but guys like Marrero and Coyle are probably too unproven.  Betts/X would work, but, well, not for us.  Need to get a 3rd team involved.  Washington has talked with Texas re Odor.  Wonder if we could give Texas what they want (young pitching?) to get Odor and then flip him and a SP for Zimmermann...

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I'm guessing that the Nationals would want some controllable, relatively inexpensive combination of a rotation replacement and middle infielder if they're going to trade Zimmermann.  They've explored an extension with Zimmermann, to no avail.  They have key guys who are going to get expensive very soon, as well as other FAs to deal with. These cost concerns are why I think they are looking at possible trades instead of just signing Lowrie (now signed)/Cabrera, etc.  And they want to remain a contender (which is why they haven't jumped at the chance to sign Drew!). Tough balancing act.
 
I don't think we match up well on the MI side of the problem.  We could include a SP (any of our 5 projected starters), but guys like Marrero and Coyle are probably too unproven.  Betts/X would work, but, well, not for us.  Need to get a 3rd team involved.  Washington has talked with Texas re Odor.  Wonder if we could give Texas what they want (young pitching?) to get Odor and then flip him and a SP for Zimmermann...

Why wouldn't Texas cut out the middleman in such a scenario? They could use Zimmermann, too.

 

[donchoi]

Here is a summary table for most of the names we've been talking about here:
 
[tablegrid= Ace Comparison Chart 2014-15 (Averages, past 3 seasons) ]Name Lg IP K/9 BB/9 ERA FIP Lester AL 213 7.9 2.6 3.65 3.49 Scherzer AL 207 10.5 2.6 3.24 2.94 Shields AL 228 7.9 2.2 3.29 3.51 Hamels NL 213 8.7 2.3 3.05 3.21 Zimmermann NL 203 7.3 1.7 2.96 3.18 Cueto NL 174 8.0 2.3 2.54 3.35 [/tablegrid] 
 
Pretty clear that Scherzer should be worth a bit more than Lester, due to the significantly higher K numbers.
 
Have to take The NL guys' numbers with a grain of salt, since they're pitching to an 8-man lineup most of the time... Maybe tack on 0.25 to their ERA to adjust to the AL?
 
You gotta prioritize the durability of these guys, so I'd hesitate a little bit for Cueto. He's small physically and missed a huge chunk of 2013.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Why wouldn't Texas cut out the middleman in such a scenario? They could use Zimmermann, too.

Money maybe. Or lack of the other pieces that Washington might want. But yeah, that's always the trick in putting together three team deals to get someone that everyone might want.

 

[Pedro 4 99MVP]

Whether or not he would qualify as an "ace" or not is moot at this point. (Although if he was going to command $130 million, he better be). He would not have been my choice, but he has been mentioned as a possibility for the Sox. Another option off the table.
Per Rotoworld:

Kenta Maeda - S - Player


According to Jim Allen of the Kyodo News, the Hiroshima Carp have informed right-handed starter Kenta Maeda that he will not be posted this offseason.

Maeda has been wanting to pitch in Major League Baseball for a couple of years, but he can't become an unrestricted free agent until after the 2017 season and his Japanese club is not willing to let him go early. There was talk in October that the 26-year-old would be able to command upwards of $130 million if posted this winter. He owns a terrific 2.44 ERA and 1.05 WHIP in 1,303 1/3 career innings for Hiroshima.

 
 

 

[Section30]

Ben says the Sox are, "not actively engaged with anything right now" in regards to an ace.
 
and,"We would feel really good if that's how we opened up," Cherington said. "You never close your eyes to opportunities. We're not actively engaged with anything right now and we feel very good if we open the season with the guys we have."
 
per ESPN Boston  http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/41417/cherington-sox-arent-searching-for-an-ace

 

[redsoxstiff]

I vote other.
 
The painful and unlikely (really no way in hell) way?: Package Betts+ to the Nationals for Jordan Zimmermann; conditional upon a successful negotiating window and Lester-type money extension. 
 
The Cherington way?: Swing a deal for Tyson Ross or Andrew Cashner for a lesser cost, roll the dice.
 
I'd honestly be happy with either scenario.

Betts+ for Zimmerman is as close to KISS as I can see...

 

[pdub]

If it comes down to Betts+ for Zimmerman + $155M, I'd rather just give Scherzer $175M and call it a day. I know he can definitely hit $200M but my gut is telling me he'll end up with $175-ish over 7 years.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

I'm starting to think Scherzer makes sense for the Red Sox.  The thing is, if the Red Sox plan to spend big money on a ace next season (Zimmerman, Price, or Cueto) wouldn't it make sense to spend the money now (Scherzer), minimize draft pick compensation (a third in 2015 versus a first in 2016), while increasing the odds the team will go all the way in 2015?

I don't see the point of signing an ace next off-season, sacrificing their 2016 first round draft pick, when they can sign an ace NOW and KEEP their 2016 first round pick.

On the other hand, if the Red Sox don't intend to sign an ace at all, my argument falls apart.  But they already showed they were willing to spend big on Lester--and so I'm assuming they want a proven ace to lead their rotation even if they haven't admitted as much.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

You're basically suggesting that a first round pick - presumably outside the top 20; or further the difference between that pick and the Sox top 10 pick in the 3rd round this year - is worth the difference in contract dollars, the risk differential in length of contract and the age difference between Scherzer and the guys you listed.

In summary, you'd spend rather another year, ~$30-50M, and have a pitcher a year or two older in order to "move up" ~40 picks in the draft (and the commensurate draft pool allocation) ?

I'm not sure he FO would agree with that exchange.

 
While a guy like Zimmerman is two years younger than Scherzer, if the Red Sox sign Zimmerman NEXT YEAR, he would be only one year younger than what Scherzer is NOW.  And, so, in waiting for Zimmerman, Cueto, and Price to become free agents, the Red Sox aren't really gaining a younger player.  All four pitchers are/will be entering free agency at approximately the same age.  

Also, we don't know what Zimmerman, etc., are going to cost in free agency.  They might cost the same as Scherzer; they might cost 15 million less; they might cost much less if they have a poor season.  In Zimmerman and Cueto, we are talking about two pitchers who are determined to test free agency rather than resign with their teams.  As such, I presume they are looking for outrageous contracts, similar to the kind of greed we expect from Scherzer.

The other Scherzer benefit: he is a proven AL stud, whereas we can't be quite as certain with Zimmerman and Cueto in this regard.

So, what hangs in the balance?  The Red Sox can sign a top starter in free agency next season, probably punt on this season, since the Red Sox starting staff won't be good enough (IMO), and give up their 2016 first round pick when they sign Zimmerman, Cueto, or Price.  OR the Red Sox can sign Scherzer now, solidify their 2015 staff, and sacrifice a third round pick.  The second alternative is preferable.  With spending restrictions on the draft, there is a significant difference between first and third round picks.  The Red Sox could easily draft a high upside prospect in the 2016 first round, whereas they are much less likely to find that kind of potential in the third round of the 2015 draft.  It is much harder nowadays to draft a player like Mookie Betts in the fifth round and pay him well over slot.  In the old system, sure, first round picks and third round picks were more equal because a team could draft a first round talent in the third round and pay over slot.  In the current system, you can't do that anymore, unless you want to reach for a player in an earlier round and use those resources for a later round, but that strategy is self-defeating in the sense that you are losing out on a player somewhere to pay over slot with another pick.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If the Sox ultimately end up signing an "ace" next winter, be it Zimmermann, Cueto, Price or whomever, that doesn't mean that they're doing so because that is their plan right now.  Right now it would seem they don't intend to go out and acquire an "ace" at all, now or next winter.  By all outward appearances, they're ready to ride into 2015 and beyond with what they have and perhaps have an "ace" develop internally, whether it's a guy already in the rotation or it's someone elsewhere within the organization.
 
That doesn't mean that they'll never pursue one of those 2016 free agents, either at the trade deadline or next winter, but if they do, it will be because circumstances at the time warrant it and not because they have a grand plan to wait until then to get their "ace".  And they certainly aren't going to sign Scherzer now because to sign Zimmermann or Cueto might cost them a pick a year from now.  If they're in a position to sign Scherzer, it will be because somehow his price dropped precipitously from where it's rumored to be right now.  They're not breaking the bank for him...not after they've done all this maneuvering to fill the rotation.  If the plan was to back up a Brinks truck to Scherzer, they'd have done that first, like they tried to do with Lester.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

It seems pretty obvious that the Sox will be adding another pitcher from outside the organization next year.   Not to turn this into a far too far away discussion about next offseason, if Clay isn't very good this year, I think he will be gone.  Masterson will be gone and Porcello will need to be signed so at least two spots will be open.  I can't imagine that both of those would be filled by Rodriguez/Owens.....  

 

[The Boomer]

It seems pretty obvious that the Sox will be adding another pitcher from outside the organization next year.   Not to turn this into a far too far away discussion about next offseason, if Clay isn't very good this year, I think he will be gone.  Masterson will be gone and Porcello will need to be signed so at least two spots will be open.  I can't imagine that both of those would be filled by Rodriguez/Owens.....  

 
I can imagine it.  Some think that Johnson is just as good.  Since the Sox won't want 4 lefties in their rotation this year (if they get desperate because of injury or ineffectiveness) or next,  I could see one of these lefties swapped for an equivalent young potential right handed pitcher.  An equivalent lefty has marginally more value because most organizations could use one. It's conceivable that by pairing an emerging lefty with Marrerro, they could acquire a blocked quality righty potential ace like Syndergaard or Wisler.  The big money is likely to go to Porcello because of his age, durability and the possibility that his best is yet to come.
 
A 2016 rotation of Porcello, Miley, Buchholz/Barnes/Ranaudo/other RHP, Rodriguez and Owens/Johnson.  With 8 possible quality starters already in the majors or AAA, the best case scenario will be if, by extending Porcello, they don't need to go outside the organization to fill out their rotation next season.

 

[JimD]

Zack Greinke has an opt-out after the 2015 season - it's quite possible he could exercise this and get more than the 3/$77 he'd be owed by the Dodgers for '16-'18.

 

[bosockboy]

If the Sox ultimately end up signing an "ace" next winter, be it Zimmermann, Cueto, Price or whomever, that doesn't mean that they're doing so because that is their plan right now.  Right now it would seem they don't intend to go out and acquire an "ace" at all, now or next winter.  By all outward appearances, they're ready to ride into 2015 and beyond with what they have and perhaps have an "ace" develop internally, whether it's a guy already in the rotation or it's someone elsewhere within the organization.
 
That doesn't mean that they'll never pursue one of those 2016 free agents, either at the trade deadline or next winter, but if they do, it will be because circumstances at the time warrant it and not because they have a grand plan to wait until then to get their "ace".  And they certainly aren't going to sign Scherzer now because to sign Zimmermann or Cueto might cost them a pick a year from now.  If they're in a position to sign Scherzer, it will be because somehow his price dropped precipitously from where it's rumored to be right now.  They're not breaking the bank for him...not after they've done all this maneuvering to fill the rotation.  If the plan was to back up a Brinks truck to Scherzer, they'd have done that first, like they tried to do with Lester.

You really can't employ that strategy with Boras though. He drags it deep into the winter.

Ben's strategy IMO was to aggressively acquire an acceptable rotation so he could hold leverage in trade talks, and/or wait out Shields and Scherzer. I imagine Boras is actively courting the Sox w/r/t Scherzer.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

You really can't employ that strategy with Boras though. He drags it deep into the winter.

Ben's strategy IMO was to aggressively acquire an acceptable rotation so he could hold leverage in trade talks, and/or wait out Shields and Scherzer. I imagine Boras is actively courting the Sox w/r/t Scherzer.

 
Boras can court all he wants.  The Red Sox aren't likely to budge from whatever their number is or get into a bidding war.  I think it's clear the plan was go aggressively for whichever front line starter would sign quickly (Lester) and failing that, go for value and depth and not get sucked into overpaying for the "security" of an ace.  They're in a position where they don't need an "ace", but obviously would take such a luxury item on if it comes at the right price.  I'd bet that Scherzer (and Shields and Hamels for that matter) isn't going to fall to that right price.  Not with Boras and other teams willing to pay the price already out there.

 

[lxt]

 
Boras can court all he wants.  The Red Sox aren't likely to budge from whatever their number is or get into a bidding war.  I think it's clear the plan was go aggressively for whichever front line starter would sign quickly (Lester) and failing that, go for value and depth and not get sucked into overpaying for the "security" of an ace.  They're in a position where they don't need an "ace", but obviously would take such a luxury item on if it comes at the right price.  I'd bet that Scherzer (and Shields and Hamels for that matter) isn't going to fall to that right price.  Not with Boras and other teams willing to pay the price already out there.

I'm not sure this is what the FO is thinking but I certainly agree with your thoughts. IMHO that is.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

 
They're in a position where they don't need an "ace", but obviously would take such a luxury item on if it comes at the right price.

 
I'm not sure if an ace is absolutely necessary, but they do need to upgrade the starting rotation.  An ace like Scherzer would obviously improve the staff to a greater extent than just about any other pitcher in baseball.
 
There is a lot of uncertainly in the starting rotation when you get past Porcello and Miley.  Kelly has never thrown more than 124 major league innings.  Buchholz is a waste of space and salary (negative WAR).  Buchholz either stinks or he gets hurt.  In either scenario, he is a miserable baseball player, but at least the Red Sox can jettison the guy after the season.  The Red Sox spent 9 million on another negative WAR SP in Masterson.  So the Red Sox have a little over 20 million going to Buchholz and Masterson in 2015, a poor use of resources insofar as there is a good chance both pitchers will continue to deliver a negative WAR going forward.
 
The Red Sox can't seriously go into the season with this starting staff.  They made some nice offensive improvements; but Cherrington has not sufficiently upgraded the rotation and thus has failed to achieve one of main off-season objectives.  I hate giving big contracts to pitchers who are entering their 30s, but I think the Red Sox are in a bad spot here, which is why they might need to overspend on Scherzer.  Without upgrading their rotation, they risk being a mediocre team in 2015.
 
If the Red Sox don't sign Scherzer, they need to do something else to improve the rotation.  I presume Cherrington is being intentionally disingenuous when he claims the Red Sox rotation is good to go.  He must know that more improvements are needed.      

 

[The Boomer]

 
I'm not sure if an ace is absolutely necessary, but they do need to upgrade the starting rotation.  An ace like Scherzer would obviously improve the staff to a greater extent than just about any other pitcher in baseball.
 
There is a lot of uncertainly in the starting rotation when you get past Porcello and Miley.  Kelly has never thrown more than 124 major league innings.  Buchholz is a waste of space and salary (negative WAR).  Buchholz either stinks or he gets hurt.  In either scenario, he is a miserable baseball player, but at least the Red Sox can jettison the guy after the season.  The Red Sox spent 9 million on another negative WAR SP in Masterson.  So the Red Sox have a little over 20 million going to Buchholz and Masterson in 2015, a poor use of resources insofar as there is a good chance both pitchers will continue to deliver a negative WAR going forward.
 
The Red Sox can't seriously go into the season with this starting staff.  They made some nice offensive improvements; but Cherrington has not sufficiently upgraded the rotation and thus has failed to achieve one of main off-season objectives.  I hate giving big contracts to pitchers who are entering their 30s, but I think the Red Sox are in a bad spot here, which is why they might need to overspend on Scherzer.  Without upgrading their rotation, they risk being a mediocre team in 2015.
 
If the Red Sox don't sign Scherzer, they need to do something else to improve the rotation.  I presume Cherrington is being intentionally disingenuous when he claims the Red Sox rotation is good to go.  He must know that more improvements are needed.      

 
In 2013, almost every move the Red Sox made worked out.  At this point before that season, while most felt the team was improved, nobody predicted the championship.  Such a convergence of forces isn't likely to repeat - or could it?  With the right buy low free agency acquisitions and trades, they can improve dramatically.  The winter before 2013, they executed a decisive strategy that avoided big ticket acquisitions and bidding wars.  Despite coming off another disappointing season, they decisively moved for top talent in HanRam and Panda before again decisively moving for 3 starters once Lester was gone for sure.  It seems like they are at the end of their financial flexibility window unless they maintain some measure of control going forward.  If they contend, they have the resources for a stretch run rental but going forward it seems like they hope to develop their ace from within or swap surplus quality prospects for someone else's surplus quality prospects to acquire more "ace" candidates.

 

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

 
So the Red Sox have a little over 20 million going to Buchholz and Masterson in 2015, a poor use of resources insofar as there is a good chance both pitchers will continue to deliver a negative WAR going forward.

 
This just isn't true.  Going by fWAR, neither Buchholz or Masterson has been negative in their career.  By bWAR, 2014 was the first year with a negative WAR for Masterson and the first year since 2008 for Buchholz.  Since neither are at an age where decline should be expected and they both have a reasonable explanation for the poor 2014 performance (injuries and poor mechanics resulting from them) I think it is ridiculously pessimistic to say there is a good chance both will continue to be something they've hardly ever been in their careers.  There is a RISK both will be negative value players, a good chance that they will be moderately productive (2 WAR), with upsides of 3-4 WAR for Masterson and 5-6 WAR for Buchholz.  

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I wonder with the depressed hitting environment whether the Sox will move toward an all #2 and 3 type rotation model. Avoid huge deals, sign a guy like Porcello to a Phil Hughes extension, and maybe augment your own prospects and trade acquisitions with a Fister-level FA signing. If you have a strong offense and defense, that kind if rotation can win.

 

[Rasputin]

I wonder with the depressed hitting environment whether the Sox will move toward an all #2 and 3 type rotation model. Avoid huge deals, sign a guy like Porcello to a Phil Hughes extension, and maybe augment your own prospects and trade acquisitions with a Fister-level FA signing. If you have a strong offense and defense, that kind if rotation can win.

 
It kind of makes sense if the range of runs has shrunk, the difference between an ace and a #2 isn't all that big and well within the margin of error for a good offensive ballclub.
 
And yeah, you can win in the post season with a good rotation that lacks an ace, but really, I would feel oh so much better if we had one, and I think if the Sox are in the post season, they'll have one.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

Buchholz didn't have a negative WAR (in 2014) according to Fangraphs -- I don't understand why, since the guy was clearly below replacement level.  He had a negative WAR (in 2014) according to Baseball Reference, along with an ERA+ of 72.  Over the last three seasons, Buchholz has demonstrated that if he stays reasonable healthy and accumulates innings, he will be a disaster on the mound (2012 and 2014).  When Buchholz pitches well, he can't sustain his health (2013 season).  In other words, Buchholz is a train wreck--and he is getting paid a lot of money to perform at such a low level.  What are the chances that Buchholz is somehow a different pitcher in 2015?  I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Or maybe you are overestimating what a replacement level player is. Insisting that the stat you are citing to support your extremely pessimistic outlook must be incorrect because it doesn't fit your perception of the players doesn't make your argument any more compelling. Buchholz had 2.2 fWAR last year and his career low is 0.8 (back in 2008). He's amassed 6.9 fWAR over the last three seasons which averages out to 2.3 fWAR per season. STEAMER projects him at 2.2, unsurprisingly. Masterson had 0.3 fWAR in 2014 and that is his career low. He produced 5.8 over the last three years which averages out to 1.9 per year. STEAMER has him at 2.0.
 
If we look at baseball-reference, Buchholz had a -1.6 last year, but his three year total is 3.6, which averages out to 1.2 per year. Masterson had -1.7 last year, and a three year total of 3.0, or an average of 1 per year. There is zero statistical evidence to support the idea that either pitcher is likely to be a negative WAR pitcher going forward. It's possible, but likely is a huge stretch.
 
Also, I'm not sure where you are drawing the correlation that if Buchholz is healthy he sucks from. How are you determining that one drives the other?